Energy-Using Product Group Analysis - Lot 5
Machine tools and related machinery
Task 7 Report – Policy and Impact Analysis
Sustainable Industrial Policy - Building on the Ecodesign
Directive - Energy-using Product Group Analysis/2
Contact: Fraunhofer Institute for Reliability and Microintegration, IZM
Department Environmental and Reliability Engineering
Dipl.-Ing. Karsten Schischke
Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25, 13355 Berlin, Germany
Tel: +49 (0)30 46403-156
Fax: +49 (0)30 46403-131
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.ecomachinetools.eu
Berlin, August 1, 2012
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 2 of 54
EuP_Lot5_Task7_August2012.doc
Authors:
Karsten Schischke
Eckhard Hohwieler
Roberto Feitscher
Sebastian Kreuschner
Paul Wilpert
Nils F. Nissen
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 3 of 54
Content
Executive Summary – Task 7 ....................................................................................... 4
7 Task 7 – Policy and Impact Analysis...................................................................... 7
7.1 Policy Analysis ............................................................................................... 8
7.1.1 Nature of measure ................................................................................... 8
7.1.2 Reference for specific requirements ...................................................... 21
7.1.3 Type of implementation ......................................................................... 25
7.1.4 Product definition ................................................................................... 33
7.1.5 Sectoral scope....................................................................................... 37
7.1.6 Related machinery ................................................................................ 38
7.1.7 Summary ............................................................................................... 38
7.2 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 43
7.2.1 Scenarios .............................................................................................. 43
7.2.2 Forecast 2025 ....................................................................................... 44
7.2.3 Plausibility ............................................................................................. 50
7.2.4 Other impact criteria .............................................................................. 52
7.3 ANNEX - Criteria for Voluntary Agreements ................................................. 53
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 4 of 54
Executive Summary – Task 7
For the various market segments covered by this study several targeted policy options
apply. For less complex machine tools specific requirements can be defined, but for
more complex machine tools policy measures need to reflect the multitude of identified
improvement options, the systems aspect, and productivity considerations. The analy-
sis of improvement options has shown that a moderate improvement potential can be
achieved solely by implementing what can be termed “good design practice”. There-
fore, one proposed requirement is the mandatory usage of Good-design-practice
Checklists, making it obligatory to assess the feasibility of improvement options. The
final judgement regarding whether an option is suitable for a given application would
remain with the machinery developer.
Besides such a checklist approach (and closely related to it), power management and
information/ declaration requirements can also be defined. Whereas power manage-
ment addresses the aspect of reducing power consumption in non-productive times
without hampering productivity, standardised information/ declaration requirements
create a transparency and comparability regarding environmental performance and life
cycle costs. In particular the latter is assumed to have an influence on purchase deci-
sions.
Such measures could be introduced either through an ecodesign implementing meas-
ure or through one or several Voluntary Agreements/ Self-Regulatory Initiatives (SRIs).
No such Voluntary Agreement is currently in place, and some standards are lacking;
these issues potentially impede the unambiguous implementation of a potentially feasi-
ble Voluntary Agreement.
Minimum environmental performance criteria are assessed as being unfeasible at the
machine tools level, due to the broad spectrum of products, missing statistical data on
current performance, and application-specific performance. However, such criteria
might be feasible to set at the component level, if clearly defined as a performance
indicator (e.g. energy efficiency of power transformation). Power management re-
quirements are feasible at both levels, i.e., for the machine tool as such, and at the
module / component level, but they would need to be formulated in a rather generic
way. Good-design-practice checklists could similarly apply to both machine tools as
such, and individual sub-modules. In addition, information and declaration require-
ments are applicable at the level of both machine tools per se, and at the level of sub-
modules.
At a sectoral level, the following policy options might apply:
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 5 of 54
All machine tools
Overarching Implementing Measure
o Generic checklist approach
o Power management requirements
o Information/ declaration requirements
Metal working machine tools
Exemption from the overarching implementing measure, if an SRI can be effec-
tively implemented in the metal working machine tools sector
Wood working machine tools
Covered by overarching implementing measure
Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) declaration for light-stationary tools; this option
is favoured, because the checklist and power management basically is not use-
ful / applicable for these machine tools
Welding equipment
Covered by overarching implementing measure
Specific power consumption requirements
Other machine tools
Covered by overarching implementing measure, unless any specific SRI is im-
plemented by any sub-sector (e.g. semiconductor equipment)
Related machinery
For all machinery covered by the machinery directive: Implementing measure
tackling selected components with the generic checklist approach
Three policy options, assumed to yield a change in the market from 2014 onwards, are
assessed against a Business-as-usual (BAU) scenario regarding their savings poten-
tial:
LLCC (Least Life Cycle Costs): Implementation of a good-design-practice-
checklist, accompanied by power management requirements and declaration
obligations, leading to machinery improvements which correspond to the point
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 6 of 54
of Least Life Cycle Costs. This scenario yields a moderate saving estimate of a
minimum 31 PJ per year in 2025, or nearly 4% compared to BAU.
LCC-BEP (Life Cycle Costs – Break-even Point): This can be considered an
“optimistic scenario”, where good-design-practice yields higher savings. Fiscal
incentives furthermore are assumed to pay off for part of the additional machin-
ery costs for implementing even more improvement options than in the LLCC
scenario. This option results in savings estimated as slightly higher, of a mini-
mum 38 PJ per year in 2025, compared to BAU.
10% VA: A Voluntary Agreement is implemented hypothetically, setting a target
that all machine tools sold in 2014 and thereafter should be, on average, 10%
less energy-consuming than in 2010. PCF (Product Carbon Footprint) label:
For light-stationary machine tools an effective PCF label scenario is calculated.
A combination of both a Voluntary Agreement with 10% reduction target, and an
effective (regardless of whether mandatory or voluntary) PCF label for small
units, yields an estimated total saving of 74 PJ per year in 2025, or 9% com-
pared to BAU.
Given the typically long lifetime of the machinery considered (six out of nine Base
Cases have an estimated lifetime of 17-20 years), any implemented measure is pro-
jected to yield significant overall savings results only over the mid- to long-term.
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 7 of 54
7 Task 7 – Policy and Impact Analysis
Product groups regulated under the ecodesign directive 2009/125/EC have to meet
three criteria (Art. 15):
(a) the product shall represent a significant volume of sales and trade, indicatively
more than 200 000 units a year (…)
(b) the product shall (…) have a significant environmental impact within the Com-
munity
(c) the product shall present significant potential for improvement in terms of its
environmental impact without entailing excessive costs, (…)
Criterion (a) is met for the products falling under the definition of “machine tools” in task
1 as a whole (see Task 2).
Regarding criterion (b), Task 4 provided the relevant calculations: Total environmental
impact in terms of total energy consumption is 646 PJ The total energy consumption of
all Base Cases is 646 PJ per year, of which 59,9 kWh is electricity. Aggregated Green-
house Gas emissions total 28 million tonnes CO2-equivalents per year (Base Cases do
not fully cover the total stock of machine tools).
Criterion (c) is addressed in Task 6: The analyses performed showed that the combina-
tion of options assessed leads to moderate Total Energy savings potentials at the point
of Least Life Cycle Costs, which are in the range of 3-5% for the most relevant Base
Cases. There are some indications that for individual machine tools significantly higher
savings can be realised. It has to be noted that such a savings potential will be realised
only slowly, as replacement rates are low, and older equipment will represent a signifi-
cant share of the stock for the mid-term future (see 7.2).
As no further guidance is provided in the directive regarding the meaning of significant
impact and savings potential no definite legalistic conclusion is possible, regarding
whether this product group qualifies for policy measures at all. Having said this, the
annual energy consumption EU-wide of the product group as a whole is considerable,
and this energy use is embedded, in turn, in the products made for many sectors, in
many industries, by the machine tools being addressed here. Therefore, the following
policy analysis discusses the feasibility of which policy measures should be adopted,
how and when.
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 8 of 54
7.1 Policy Analysis
This Subtask aims at introducing and discussing the range of policy options which
could be subject to later regulation on the part of the policy-maker. A critical review of
each option takes into account evidence provided by all previous tasks. Aside from
possible implementing measures, it should be pointed out that in some part of the ma-
chine tool industry energy efficiency measures are already promoted voluntarily.
Policy options for machine tools and related machinery have to consider multiple as-
pects:
Nature of measure
Reference for specific requirements
Type of implementation
Product definition
Sectoral scope
Any policy option has to be assessed against the following criteria:
Market coverage
Significant impact in terms of reduced environmental impacts
Measurable criteria
Availability of test protocols / standards
7.1.1 Nature of measure
Measures, first of all regardless of the policy tool used, can comprise:
Minimum environmental performance criteria
Power management requirements
Information/ declaration requirements
Good-design-practice Checklists.
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 9 of 54
Measures can be combined: A good-design-practice checklist could cover minimum
environmental performance criteria and power management requirements. Information
/ declaration requirements could cover any of the other measures.
Minimum environmental performance criteria as a possible implementation measure
impose clear and uniform rules to the manufacturer. Previous tasks demonstrated that
generalization and thus making general assumptions and statements is difficult, con-
sidering the pronounced heterogeneity of the product scope, as identified in Task 1.
However, it should be investigated if certain measures are useful in terms of appropri-
ateness and effectiveness (with regard to the policy option criteria). As reasons for en-
ergy inefficiency in machine tools can be manifold, the preceding analysis has revealed
that especially highly automated machines can have significant losses during non-
productive periods, due to a substantial base load demand. These effects occur where
the machine does not have appropriate operating power modes, or where they are not
configured appropriately, such as automated stand-by after a defined period. According
to the analysis in Tasks 1-6, following minimum environmental performance criteria
are of priority relevance:
Electricity consumption
For some applications further media are relevant, such as
Pressurized air / vacuum consumption
Cooling lubricant consumption
Welding gas consumption
Table 7-1 lists the consumption of relevant media and utilities. Most machine tools
consume only a selection of these. Examples are provided, which utility is relevant for
which type of machinery / equipment.
The multitude of machine tools applications and the specifics of these applications, as
analysed in the preceding Tasks 1-6, does not permit the definition of general minimum
environmental performance criteria for these types of utilities and media consumption.
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 10 of 54
Measurement procedures for electricity and fluids consumption are described in SEMI
S23 Application Guide and Total Equivalent Energy (TEE) CalcII User’s Guide as Rec-
ommended Practices for Utility Measurement1.
Table 7-1: Utility and media consumption metrics
Utility or Material Basic Use Rate Metrics and Units2 Remarks
Electricity Real Power (Watts) Most relevant parameter for all types of ma-chine tools
Exhaust Pressure (Pa); Flow (m3/h); Inlet Temp (°C); Outlet Temp (°C)
Relevant for several types of machine tools, in particular also for wood working machinery, but exhaust system typically is not an inte-grated part of the machine tool and therefore out of scope; relevant e.g. for semiconductor manufacturing equipment
Vacuum Pressure (Pa); Flow (m3/h) Relevant for numerous machine tools
Dry Air / Nitrogen (N2)
Pressure (Pa); Flow (m3/h) Relevant as pressurized air for numerous machine tools, nitrogen being relevant as shielding gas for thermal processes e.g. in semiconductor manufacturing
Cooling Water Supply Pressure (kPa); Return Pressure (kPa); Flow (l/h); Inlet Temp (°C); Outlet Temp (°C)
Relevant for e.g. tool cooling, laser source cooling and thermal processes in semiconduc-tor manufacturing
Ultrapure Water (UPW)
Purity Requirements; Inlet Temp (°C); Flow (l/h)
Relevant for some semiconductor manufactur-ing equipment
Cooling lubricant consumption
Flow (l/h) Relevant for working of metal and other hard materials
Welding gas con-sumption
Type; Flow (l/h) Typically depending on user settings
Electricity consumption requirements need to be defined on a thorough modes defini-
tion. ISO 14955-1 (Draft) defines the operating states for metal working machine tools
and Table 7-2 provides an abridged version of these in comparison with the modes
defined for arc welding equipment in IEC 60974-1 ed.4 (FDIS), and SEMI S23 for
semiconductor equipment.
1 referencing SEMI E6-0303 Guide for Semiconductor Equipment Installation, SEMI S23-0708, Guide for Conservation of Energy, Utilities, and Materials Used by Semiconductor Manu-facturing Equipment, and Semiconductor Equipment Association of Japan (SEAJ) E-002E, Guideline for Energy Quantification
2 Corresponds with the metrics defined in SEMI S23 for semiconductor manufacturing equip-ment where these are affected
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 11 of 54
Table 7-2: Comparison of modes and states of operation
SEMI S23 ISO 14955-1 (draft) IEC 60974-1 ed.4 (FDIS)
metal-cutting machine tools metal-forming machine tools
process mode -
equipment is ener-
gized and performing
its intended function
on target materials
processing - mains ON,
machine control ON, periph-
eral units ON, machine proc-
essing unit ON and
MACHINING, machine motion
unit ON and axes MOVING
cycling - mains ON, control
voltage ON, peripherals ON,
all drives ON and axes
MOVING
Not defined
idle - equipment is
energized and readied
for process mode (all
systems ready and
temperatures con-
trolled) but is not
actually performing
any active function
such as materials
movement or process-
ing
warm up - mains ON, ma-
chine control ON, peripheral
units ON, machine processing
unit ON but no machining
takes place, machine motion
unit ON and axes MOVING
ready for operation - mains
ON, machine control ON,
peripherals ON, all drives
ON
idle - operating state in
which the power is
switched on and the weld-
ing circuit is not energized
ready for operation - mains
ON, machine control ON,
peripheral units ON, machine
processing unit ON HOLD,
machine motion unit ON
HOLD (ON HOLD describes
the situation where the unit is
ON but not operating, i.e. no
processing takes place, no
movements are carried out)
sleep - equipment is
energized but it is
using less energy than
in idle mode; initiated
by a specific single
command signal,
either from an equip-
ment actuator, an
equipment electronic
interface, or a mes-
sage received through
factory control soft-
ware
extended standby -
Mains ON, machine control
ON, peripheral units ON,
machine processing unit OFF,
machine motion unit OFF
extended standby -
mains ON, machine control
ON, peripheral units ON,
auxiliary drive(s) ON, main
drive(s) OFF
This state is an intermediate
state and the machine tool is
remaining in it until enabled
for main drives – e.g. until oil
temperature is in an admis-
sible range
standby - Mains ON, machine
control ON, peripheral units
OFF, machine processing unit
OFF, machine motion unit
OFF
standby - mains ON, ma-
chine control ON, peripheral
units ON, all drives OFF
Not defined off - Mains OFF off - Mains OFF standby - non operating
state in which the supply
circuit on/off switching
device is off
The provision of an interface to an external or internal energy monitoring and control
system could be a mandatory requirement for CNC machine tools. Such an interface
optionally should enable any of the following:
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 12 of 54
Stand-alone solutions are designed in such a way that they can be applied for a
broad variety of machines; hence, that there is a very low need of specialized
machine interfaces.
Module-based systems are functions usually integrated into the CNC-control
software by the control unit manufacturer, in which energy consumption-related
PLC commands are addressed.
As far as external and factory integrated systems are concerned, PROFIenergy
is a widely-used protocol in the mechanical engineering industry. Its implemen-
tation, however, requires the existence of a communication infrastructure based
on the open industrial Ethernet standard PROFINET.
Power management requirements have a high potential for improvement, but quanti-
tative requirements (transition times from one mode to another, or even power con-
sumption thresholds in distinct modes) are difficult to quantify across technologies.
Productivity is severely hampered, if too short transition periods from any processing
mode to a sleep/ standby mode of the machine tool, or parts thereof are made obliga-
tory. This is because warm-up and bringing back the machine to full operating state
delays the processing. However, for a given application scenario (job sequence), it is
possible to identify a transition time to low-power modes which do not interfere with the
majority of jobs which the machine has to handle, but which still allow significant power
savings (see schematic graph below).
Typically, for a given application, a correlation can be established between the time
span between individual processing jobs and the number of jobs, which are initiated
after the respective time span. Such a correlation allows the identification of a suitable
transition time, but essentially requires an analysis per individual use case.
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 13 of 54
Figure 7-1: Schematic illustration of time between jobs vs. number of jobs
Given the anecdotal evidence provided by a bending machine manufacturer, for bend-
ing the vast majority of jobs (>95%) is initiated latest 7 minutes after the preceding job.
Power management requirements need to be based on mode definitions as provided in
Table 7-2.
Power management requirements could be formulated as follows:
Provision of a manual low power option: In case the operator wants to interrupt
the process on the machine due to a scheduled break or an unexpected event,
the machine should be equipped with a stand-by mode which can be triggered
manually.
Set a transition time to a low-power mode: At least "x" minutes (e.g. 10 minutes)
after the mode idle / ready for operation / warm up is entered and no processing
job is initiated, the machine tool should automatically switch into a low-power
mode (sleep / extended standby / standby).
o The operator should be able to change the settings for the transition
time to the low power mode
Set a minimum reduction target regarding power consumption in low-power
compared to idle/ ready for operation: In low-power mode the machine tool
should consume maximum "x" % of the power consumption in idle/ ready for
operation (given the evidence provided in Task 5, an appropriate level for "x"
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 14 of 54
could be 20%). Even if in idle / ready for operation modes certain auxiliary units
are powered down, this should count towards the power reduction in low-power
mode.
o The power savings in low-power mode should be stated in %.
o If power savings on the required level cannot be achieved, a justification
must be provided
Remark (1): Without defining a quantified or at least a relative consumption re-
duction target, there is the risk that the power management requirement is im-
plemented with only a negligible power consumption difference between
modes, thus limiting the potential for greater savings.
Remark (2): Taking the idle/ ready for operation mode as benchmark bears the
risk that this mode is implemented with high power consumption just to achieve
the reduction target – therefore power saving features implemented for this
mode should already count towards the reduction. Similarly, taking the process
mode as a reference would result in the additional effect that power consump-
tion in this mode depends on numerous process parameters and thus could
only be determined with difficulty.
Definition of a low-power mode should follow those provided in Table 7-2:
o For metal cutting machine tools: Mains ON, machine control ON, pe-
ripheral units OFF, machine processing unit OFF, machine motion unit
OFF.
o For metal forming machine tools: Mains ON, machine control ON, pe-
ripheral units ON, all drives OFF.
Remark: This approach requires individual operation state definitions for differ-
ent types of machine tools, with respect to technological differences
If the machine tools manufacturer does not implement a default transition time to a low-
power mode or any other requirements, this must be justified (see also the acceptable
justifications provided below, in the paragraph on good-design-practice checklists).
Energy management requirements may also be applicable solely for machine tools with
an advanced level of automation (also see level of automation classification in Task 1).
Power management at the machine tools level is important, but generic requirements
could be set at a broader level, as the power management of a machine tool should
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 15 of 54
enable not only a “machine-wide” low power mode, but should also enable the power-
ing down of its auxiliary units and parts (e.g. pumps, using variable speed drives),
whenever these are not needed, or are run under reduced load. This is a much more
complex approach, as it has to reflect the individual configuration and use patterns of
machine tools in detail. Therefore, such kind of component-wise power management
rather qualifies as a generic design requirement and could be formulated as follows: All
[major] power consuming sub-components shall feature the possibility to be switched to
a low- or no-power-mode automatically, if no function is provided and if this feature
does not entail the following issues: performance losses, conflicts with safety require-
ments, or if it leads to additional costs which exceed potential energy savings under
typical production conditions (to be documented).
It should be noted that compliance with any quantitative requirement (e.g. power con-
sumption in a low-power mode in relation to idle/ ready for operation mode) can only be
verified by the machine tools manufacturer once the whole machinery has been con-
structed and is running for the first time. Given the complexity of machine tools, it is
only at this point that reliable measurements are possible. Therefore, where measure-
ment show non-compliant results, a redesign of the machine tool would typically mean
excessive costs to implement changes. For custom-made machine tools (which are a
major share of the total market) this is even more challenging, as every machine tool
has to be subject to such measurements.
Information/ declaration requirements are targeted at
the machinery purchaser, who should be supported in their purchase decisions
the machinery operator, to inform and enable him/ her to make use of energy-
saving features and other environmental performance settings
the wider public/ policy-makers/ market surveillance authorities, to review the
impact of any policy measure.
For the purchaser, a transparency and comparability of life cycle costs is essential.
Therefore a standardised life cycle costs calculation, including electricity and media
costs, should be provided by the machinery manufacturer, unless the purchaser speci-
fies a life cycle costing scheme of their own. The only standard currently available is
VDMA Einheitsblatt 34160:2006, for which VDMA also provides a comprehensive suite
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 16 of 54
of Excel tools for calculations3. Although allowing for a very transparent calculation, the
consideration of energy consumption in use in various modes requires some additional
assumptions, for which VDMA Einheitsblatt 34160:2006 does not provide detailed
guidance.
Furthermore, the purchaser should get access to information about the design features
(design checklist results as outlined above) related to reduction of environmental im-
pacts. This allows for a certain transparency regarding the design measures imple-
mented, and enables the purchaser to specify in detail that certain criteria of the check-
list should be met.
The declaration should also include power (and possibly media) consumption in the
various modes defined above, including a description under which settings consump-
tion was measured4. The list of utility and media consumption depicted in Table 7-1
should be provided. Furthermore, power management default settings need to be ex-
plained in the declaration (the sequence in which the machine tool enters a power sav-
ing mode).
For the operator, instructions are required, relating to:
how power management settings could be changed, including information re-
garding the impact on power and media consumption (information to be pro-
vided in the manual and by the CNC system, if applicable)
any other instructions, which enable the operator to operate the machine tool in
a manner which reduces environmental impacts
The control panel menu should feature:
3 Download: http://www.vdma.org/wps/portal/Home/de/VDMAThemen/Management_und_Recht/Management/BW_Download_LCC_Berechnungswerkzeug?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/vdma/Home/de/VDMAThemen/Management_und_Recht/Management/BW_Download_LCC_Berechnungswerkzeug
4 The Federal Environmental Agency proposed to require potentially a sensitivity check, or an online tool to calculate energy consumption under specific settings. However, a sensitivity analysis would be even more challenging to provide as this would not only require the defi-nition of one test workpiece / cycle etc. (see 7.1.2), but also alternatives to these and to undertake related measurements. A calculation tool would require the development of pa-rameterized calculation models, i.e. a machinery simulation, which would indeed allow a customized calculation but requires extensive parameter testing for each machine tool indi-vidually.
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 17 of 54
power (and media) consumption values in real time (for the machine tool as a
whole) and a historic energy consumption profile (minimum time frame: 24
hours)
level of refrigerants and status of oils in the system. in order to identify losses.
The control panel menu could feature:
power (and media) consumption values in real time (at the component / sub-
module level) and a historic energy consumption profile,
a warning before a low-power mode is entered automatically.
For market surveillance (under any type of implementation), it is essential that certain
data on the environmental performance are provided, which could include:
power consumption savings compared to a "standard machine tool" (which re-
quires the definition for a comparable standard machine tool, which is prob-
lematic, considering the interruptive new technologies and performance levels,
which were not achievable with previous machinery designs). The CECIMO
SRI proposal (work in progress) is based on this approach.
power consumption in absolute terms (requires the definition of “typical” use
patterns).
Even without setting any performance thresholds, information requirements as stated
above could help to close knowledge gaps in terms of the performance of machine
tools on the market at large. This could be instrumental for the revision of any policy
measure, since it will serve as the basis for setting further requirements reflecting the
status of the market and its evolution.
A screening Life Cycle Assessment could provide user information in terms of envi-
ronmental performance throughout the product life cycle. Standards are in place (ISO
14.040), but still lack detail to make them applicable unambiguously. Requiring any
LCA data for complex investment goods, such as machine tools, solely on the basis of
the ISO standards or similar could risk incentivising the misuse of the concept of LCA
In January 2012, product category rules (PCR) were published for CPC Subclass
44214: Machines-tools for drilling, boring or milling metal v1.0, based on CTME’s prac-
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 18 of 54
tical experience with LCAs for machine tools5. Although this PCR is a huge step for-
ward towards unambiguous guidance, regarding how LCA data should be calculated
(via its definition of background data for upstream processes, system boundaries and
cut-off criteria, functional unit, etc), it still lacks a standardisation of the use scenarios,
which hampers a fair comparison of machine tools (see discussion on test workpieces
below, which would be required as well as a reference unit for LCA calculations). Con-
sequently, the above-referenced PCR does not qualify as a mandatory requirement;
however, it could be a component in voluntary activities to enhance information flow.
Only for rather simple equipment is such an LCA approach potentially feasible, via a
policy framework. For light-stationary tools/ power tools an EPTA working group drafted
a procedure for measuring Product Carbon Footprint of power tools. EPTA is cur-
rently evaluating this procedure with several of their members during 2012 and will
compare results later in the year6. The methodology is not published yet, and was not
accessible to Fraunhofer, but given the rather narrow field of equipment covered, it
might be specific enough to allow for credible publication of comparable Product Car-
bon Footprint data.
Good-design-practice checklists are a somewhat “soft” requirement as these outline
numerous design aspects, which then have to be checked by the designer regarding
suitability for implementation. Designers could be required to state for each design
measure how it was addressed, and where it was not addressed, to provide a full ex-
planatory justification. Examples of acceptable justifications are:
Measure is technologically not applicable for a given machine tool (e.g. re-
quirement for an improved vacuum system where there is none)
Measure would not result in relevant savings, due to certain specifics of an ap-
plication (e.g. high-efficiency motors mounted on a movable axis result in in-
creased moved masses, thus higher power consumption), calculation to be pro-
vided
Measure is in conflict with another measure with a higher impact (e.g. imple-
mentation of an electrical drive which could simultaneously be replaced by a
variable speed drive pump for a hydraulic system, or implementation of an en-
5 Product Category Rules (PCR) for the assessment of the life-cycle environmental performance of UN CPC 44214 "Machine-tools for drilling, boring or milling metal”, http://www.environdec.com/en/Product-Category-Rules/Detail/?Pcr=7945
6 See also: EPTA: Flyer on Product Carbon Footprint, January 12, 2011, http://www.epta.eu/upload/2011-02-01_PCF-FLYER_701.pdf
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 19 of 54
ergy-efficient axis-drive which simultaneously could be replaced by a counter-
weight balance), correlation to be explained
Measure results in significant negative impacts on productivity and/or yield (e.g.
a stable machinery temperature is essential for high precision micro-machining
equipment, hence shut-down in production breaks is not tolerable)
Measure is in conflict with safety requirements
Measure would not result in a return on investment (ROI) within an acceptable
timeline (acceptable timeline to be defined), total-costs-of-ownership calculation
to be provided
Existing good-design-practice checklists and similar, which could constitute a basis for
any measures, are:
Measures listed in Task 4 (basically for all types of machinery covered by the
scope of the study, but as yet not formulated as design checklist, covering life
cycle aspects beyond energy in use)
Informative Annex of ISO 14955-1 (metal working machine tools only, energy in
use only)
IHOBE: Guías sectoriales de ecodiseño – Máquina herramienta, February 2010
(metal working machine tools only, description of individual measures, partly
company specific solutions, covering life cycle aspects beyond energy in use, in
Spanish only)
EN 14717:2005: Welding and allied processes — Environmental check list (for
welding equipment only, very generic guidance only: the focus is on proper op-
eration of the equipment, but less on equipment design as such, additional as-
pects beyond energy consumption covered)
SEMI S23-0311: Guide for Conservation of Energy, Utilities and Materials used
by Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment (for semiconductor manufacturing
equipment only)
Regarding SEMI S23, it should be noted that some semiconductor manufacturing
equipment is basically covered by the scope of the study as “machine tools” and over-
laps also with the metal working machine tools (e.g. wafer saws, laser drilling etc.), but
other types of semiconductor manufacturing equipment are covered only as “related
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 20 of 54
machinery”, i.e., at the modular level (e.g. lithography equipment, plasma etching, sput-
tering).
The good-design-practise checklist approach principally incorporates the peculiarities
of the product scope. It considers uncertainties in product properties and provides the
greatest possible freedom in implementing individual efficiency measures for the manu-
facturer. This approach is supported by CECIMO’s SRI concept in which it is stated
that “the complexity of the individual machine tool types within the given product group
is challenging and not obviously definable. Talking about machine tools means describ-
ing a product group with about 400 different types/ machines categories and defining a
product group with about 2.000 different machine tools.” Hence, the “comparability be-
tween machine tools is limited” and “a functional unit of a machine tool cannot be de-
fined unambiguously”. 7 This appraisal corresponds with evidence provided in Tasks 1-
6.To fulfil basic assessment criteria as stated above, and to achieve a wide market
coverage, the good-design-practice checklist should either be:
Generic for all of the ENTR Lot 5 scope, i.e., including all related machinery and
components; or
Specific for technologically-similar machine tools (which requires a distinction of
cutting, forming and joining machinery types, differentiating metal, wood and
other material processing).
The market coverage can additionally be extended if the checklist is to be used when
retrofitting machine tools. The checklist can be combined with standardised process
media measurement methods, since a fundamental analysis of the current state of the
energy profile of the product is required initially. The checklist and measurement meth-
ods should give information about the determination of system boundaries, the defini-
tion of existing operating states, functions, modules, and typical use profiles from the
customers. It should be clarified at the beginning, if such measurement should allow
the comparability of different machine tools (e.g. for a certain machining tasks) or indi-
vidually (existing methods will be introduced when referencing specific requirements,
later in this task).
Thus, besides a basic selection of technological and organizational improvement op-
tions, the checklist as a whole needs to subsume further tools and methods, to: (i) ana-
7 CECIMO: Concept Description for CECIMO’s Self-Regulatory Initiative (SRI) for the Sector Specific Implementation of the Directive 2005/32/EC (EuP Directive), 2009.
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 21 of 54
lyze and decipher the current state; (ii) identify energy intensive functions and modules;
(iii) develop an overall concept; (iv) assess, select, and implement design features; and
(v) monitor and record the process.
7.1.2 Reference for specific requirements
Any specific requirement needs a well-defined reference basis:
consumption per machine tool/ module (absolute values)
consumption per machine tool/ module compared to a standard configuration
(relative improvement)
consumption per work piece/ output/ cycle (productivity, efficiency)
A requirement regarding consumption per workpiece/ output/ cycle requires the defini-
tion of either
a test workpiece; or
a standard test cycle.
Both approaches do not necessarily approximate the real application of the machine
tool, and thus they might result - in individual cases - in non-optimal machinery use, for
specific use patterns/ cycles.
The test workpiece approach allows the definition of an exact product reference for
benchmarking, taking into account also productivity. However, this approach is limited,
for two reasons:
Test workpieces are not (yet) available for all technologies. There is no all-
inclusive “test workpiece” suitable for all types of machine tools. Instead, tech-
nology-specific standard work pieces need to be defined, reflecting the proc-
essing type (milling, cutting, forming etc.), machine type (number of axes),
quality (surface roughness), and certain general performance criteria, if needed
(micro machining, high speed processing etc.). Such test workpieces have
been defined e.g. by the German NC-Gesellschaft e.V. (NCG) to allow for a
performance assessment of various metal working machine tools, used for ac-
ceptance testing (see Table 7-3). Typically, test workpieces are also defined by
customers to reflect their individual preferences. Standardized (by the NCG or
others) test workpieces are not available for all types of machine tools, not
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 22 of 54
even for the complete range of metal working machine tools8. Hence, some
form of test workpiece standardisation would be required before this could be
made the sole reference point for (energy) consumption.
Table 7-3: List of selected test workpieces
Test workpiece Reference
Test workpiece for 5-axis micro-milling
machines
NCG-2007, Mikroprüfwerkstück für 5-Achsen-Mikrofräsmaschinen (un-
der development), NC-Gesellschaft e.V.
Test workpiece for water-jet cutting NCG-2006, Prüfwerkstück für Wasserstrahlschneiden, NC-Gesellschaft
e.V.
Test workpiece for five-axis simultaneous
milling machining
NCG-2005, Prüfwerkstück für die 5-Achs-Simultan-Fräsbearbeitung, NC-
Gesellschaft e.V.
Test workpiece for High Speed Cutting NCG-2004, Prüfrichtlinien und Prüfwerkstücke für hochdynamische
Bearbeitungen (HSC), NC-Gesellschaft e.V.
Common test workpieces do not reflect the specifics of a distinct application.
By nature, test workpieces are rather intended to test the limits of a machine
tool, not to represent a typical, average processing task. Consequently, power
consumption values measured for a test workpiece will deviate from the power
consumption for the later real application. However, test workpieces should be
suitable to benchmark power consumption of different machine tools (which are
intended for the same purpose).
Definition of suitable common test workpieces affects Intellectual Property of
machinery manufacturers. Knowledge about the distinct operation of machines
and typical production tasks is considered valuable know-how and a competi-
tive advantage by (some) machinery manufacturers. Willingness to share such
information with the public is low. It might be acceptable, if an intermediate
(such as an Independent Inspector under a Voluntary Agreement) were given
access to the test workpiece design and was allowed to verify measurements.
However, even under such conditions, each manufacturer would develop indi-
vidual company sample parts, which would then only allow the calculation of
(and disclosure of) a kind of “fleet consumption”, or “fleet efficiency” (and re-
lated year-to-year changes), and would not allow the comparison of machine
tools from different manufacturers. Consequently such an approach could work
under a Voluntary Agreement, but has limitations with regard to user informa-
8 JMTBA points out in a stakeholder comment, that “even if each manufacturer in each country collects the machining data by different workpieces, the consumer and industry can be ex-pected to be confused.”
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 23 of 54
tion. Basically, the approach of individual test workpieces could work as fol-
lows:
o Every machine manufacturer defines a set of sample parts which repre-
sent his market, considering materials, geometries (both of the proc-
essed input material and the product output), and quality requirements.
o Such a set of sample parts would have to remain unchanged for a
longer period of time, to allow for year-to-year comparisons.
o Energy and consumption of other media for processing these sample
parts (potentially including also non-operational times, see below) is
measured and calculated as efficiency indicator(s) for each type of ma-
chine tool in the individual portfolio of a manufacturer.
o Based on efficiencies of each type of machine tool, a use scenario and
annual sales figures for an annual "fleet" consumption and efficiency is
calculated.
Common test workpieces would always disadvantage some manufacturers,
because their machines are optimised for another market segment. In this case
manufacturers would then be faced with the choice of either optimizing their
machines for the common test workpieces or for their customers (and thus im-
plementing options which lead to real energy savings in production)
Quantifying the environmental impacts on a per test workpiece basis does not
include the aspect of down time, and other non-operational period of time. As
the analyses in Tasks 4-6 show, the non-productive times are among the most
relevant aspects in terms of environmental impacts, and also represent a sig-
nificant potential for improvement. These aspects can be addressed only if a
standard test cycle is referenced.
A standard test cycle for metal working machine tools is currently under development
by the German NC-Gesellschaft e.V. (NCG)9. The first discussion draft of this test cycle
is defined as a 15 minutes cycle, 50% thereof tools change time, 25% machining time
and the remaining 25% standby time. The tools change cycle is defined in several
steps, starting from a status where the main spindle(s), pumps and chip conveyor are
9 Kaufeld, M.: Energieeffizienz – eine Kennziffer á la NCG für den Anwender, nc transfer, no. 49, September 2011
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 24 of 54
switched off, covers tool placement in the magazine, rotation of the magazine, tool fit-
ting, movement of all axes back to the working space, cooling lubrication system and
chip conveyer activated. This cycle is repeated for 7,5 minutes. The machining time is
represented by simultaneous oscillation and rotation of all axes for 3,75 minutes, fol-
lowed by 3,75 minutes all drives switched off or in stand-by respectively. Based on this
cycle a technology independent energy efficiency indicator EENCG, including electricity
and compressed air consumption, is proposed with correction factors for travelling dis-
tances of X-, Y-, Z-axes, rotation angles, pressure of the cooling lubricant system,
maximum rotational speed, movement speed:
EENCG [1/(kW/h · m³/h)] = (n · 4) / (Eelectr · Qcompr_air)
Such an approach allows the measurement of more realistic power (and compressed
air) consumption, although there will be operation scenarios, where much less frequent
tool changes are required, or where typically there are much longer standby times.
This test cycle is applicable for machining centres (intended for metal working, but a
similar cycle with minor modifications seems to be applicable for woodworking machin-
ing centres as well). Similar test cycles are not yet defined for other machine tools and
related machinery, such as presses, saws, welding equipment etc.
An alternative approach to quantify consumption per output is based on the amount
of material processed. This approach is applied for example for plastics injection
moulding (see EUROMAP 60, referenced in Task 1), but is not suitable for other than
primary shaping processes. Although a machine which is able to remove more mate-
rial with the same amount of energy is more efficient than another which consumes the
same energy, but at a lower material removal rate, this approach is clearly hampered
when considering other technical parameters, in addition. Taking the amount of mate-
rial removed as a basis to assess cutting machine tools would incentivise machine
tools with a high removal rate at low accuracy. For bending machine tools, a suitable
reference is completely missing. For welding, a typical process/ equipment parameter
is the length of the welding seam produced in a given time. However, this parameter
depends on numerous other characteristics, such as:
Welded material(s)
Weld wire material
Material thickness
Welding seam geometrics.
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 25 of 54
7.1.3 Type of implementation
Any requirements could be implemented through various means:
Implementing measure
Voluntary Agreement / Self-Regulatory Initiative
Energy Efficiency Labelling
Fiscal instruments.
An Implementing Measure actually could be based on the same standards as a Vol-
untary Agreement, i.e. SEMI S23 for semiconductor equipment or ISO 14955-1 for
metalworking machine tools. According to the analysis above, an implementing meas-
ure could include:
Mandatory requirements to apply certain standards for machinery design, or to
apply similar design checklists for types of machine tools for which suitable
standards are not available (to be developed, provided as an annex to the im-
plementing measure)
Mandatory power management requirements (as outlined above)
Mandatory declaration requirements (as outlined above)
Taking the machinery directive as a blueprint for an ecodesign implementing measure
could result in an approach, which references the several standards to be applied.
Certain types of machine tools could be exempted, if a Voluntary Agreement is in place
for this sector. Alternatively, the only manufacturers exempted from the Implementing
Measure might be those which have previously signed a Voluntary Agreement en-
dorsed by the European Commission.
A Voluntary Agreement or Self-Regulatory Initiative is under development for the
metal working machine tools sector only (CECIMO SRI). For semiconductor equip-
ment, a standard has been developed (SEMI 23), which could serve as the basis for a
Voluntary Agreement, in addition. The Annex (Section 7.3) to this Task 7 report lists an
abridged extract of criteria which a Voluntary Agreement should meet, in order to be
acceptable as an alternative to an implementing measure.
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 26 of 54
The operational framework of the CECIMO SRI has not yet been developed in detail. A
draft of ISO 14955-1, which will define the basic approach for a self-assessment of a
machine tool, is available, but besides the initial position papers and later presentations
by CECIMO no draft SRI document is available as yet. As it stands today, the SRI is
characterised as follows:
No quantifiable minimum environmental performance criteria are defined
Good-design-practice Checklist as an informative Annex of ISO 14955-1 (draft)
Power management requirements covered through the checklist approach
Information/ declaration requirements are not yet defined, but mandatory publi-
cation of the checklists could be a way forward
Benchmarking with a “standard” machine tool is intended, but the standard
machine tool is to be defined by the manufacturer, which is extremely difficult
to achieve, unambiguously.
Table 7-4: Assessment of the CECIMO SRI for metal working machine tools
Criteria CECIMO SRI
Market coverage High coverage to be expected, but no signatories confirmed yet; no
proposal yet how to cover imported machine tools by non-CECIMO
member countries
Significant impact in terms of
reduced environmental impacts
Checklist approach deemed appropriate to realise maximum impact,
leaving the machinery developer with high flexibility regarding design
decisions
Focus on energy consumption in use phase only
Measurable criteria Criteria partly quantifiable (power consumption in various modes), but
most are generic criteria
Availability of test protocols /
standards
ISO 14955-1
The "Blue Competence" initiative was recently extended to the European level for
metal working machine tools, and is now operated by CECIMO at EU level. At the
German level, as initiated by VDMA, this initiative covers many more sectors than
purely metal working machine tools, namely also10
:
Power transmission
Lifts and escalators
10 www.bluecompetence.net
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 27 of 54
Foundry machines
Metallurgical Plants and Rolling Mills
Intralogistics
Precision tools
Robotics and automation
Textile machinery
Thermo process technology
Fluid power
Plastics and rubber machinery.
With this broad scope, several sectors are covered, which comprise also “related ma-
chinery”. Machine tools manufacturers joining the Blue Competence initiative “commit
to promote sustainable product development and production process design by imple-
menting actions in the following fields: energy, raw materials, emissions, waste and
recycling managements, clean production and life cycle cost. The Blue Competence
Machine Tools initiative is a voluntary initiative which is open to the participation of
companies from across Europe. Companies which show convergence with the sustain-
ability principles agreed upon in the Blue Competence charter can apply to become
partners of the Blue Competence initiative.”11 Further details are provided in the press
release12:
Under the heading “manufacturing in Europe” the nature of companies invited to join
the Blue Competence Initiative is explained: “Only manufacturing companies producing
machines or subsystems for working of metal and related materials who carry out at
least two of the following three activities "design", "production and assembly" or "sale"
in Europe can become a partner of Blue Competence Machine Tools.” This restriction
to European manufacturers might be in conflict with the fact that the ErP directive ad-
dresses all products brought on the market in the EU-27, regardless of whether they
are manufactured in the European Union or are imported.
11 Invitation to the press conferences on February 17 and 29, 2012
12 CECIMO: The European Machine Tool lndustry drives sustainability into the heart of manu-facturing under the Blue Competence Initiative, press release, 17 February 2012, Brussels
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 28 of 54
Requirements to be fulfilled address two levels: the company level, and the product
level. Regarding the product level, a criteria catalogue is provided as follows:
“2. Substantive technical preconditions
A Reduction in moving masses
B Use of energy-efficient components and subsystems
C Support for the operator in optimising energy consumption (e.g. monitoring)
D Provision for recovering/re-using energy and/or waste heat
E Avoidance/shortening of start-up and warm-up phases, or energy-saving
stand-by concepts based on appropriate design measures or controI system
features
F Monitoring to detect leaks and losses of gas and fluids and consumables
G The product meets other criteria with an impact on sustainability (please in-
dicate which criteria)
At least three of the technical preconditions shall be met, and none of the technical
preconditions shall be infringed by products manufactured by any company that adver-
tises using the Blue Competence trademark. Appropriate documentation shall be
drawn up and kept safe in the company concerned, enabling it to be viewed as
needed.”
This criteria catalogue is an abridged version of a Best-practice-design-Checklist and is
thus compatible with the checklist approach outlined above. “The Blue Competence
Machine Tools initiative is based on a self-declaration principle. Partner companies
choose which preconditions are fulfilled according to the list of possibilities given in the
contract.” With respect to monitoring, the press release states: “The Blue Competence
Machine Tools trademark will not be developed into a product certification (even if a
standard would exist). There are also no audits foreseen in this certification context.
However, this decision could be reviewed over time.”
The Blue Competence initiative clearly has an impact on the machinery sector, regard-
ing the communication of environmental performance, and features some elements
which are essential for a Voluntary Agreement. However, Blue Competence still lacks
some components and defined targets to make it a valid alternative to an implementing
measure, as explained below.
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 29 of 54
For example, Energy efficiency labelling of machine tools could be developed under
the energy efficiency labelling directive, which, since its last revision, covers the same
scope as the ErP directive.
Energy efficiency labelling requires the definition of energy efficiency classes and an
energy efficiency indicator. Such an indicator has been proposed by the NC-
Gesellschaft (see standard test cycle above), which by now is the most advanced ap-
proach so far.
As the draft energy efficiency indicator was published only in September 2011, no sta-
tistical market data for related indicator results is available, nor does this study provide
a statistical survey of the power consumption of a larger number of individual machine
tools. Such kind of data is not currently available.
Consequently, the development of an energy efficiency label for machine tools would
require the following activities:
(1) Defining an energy efficiency indicator and establishing a testing and calcula-
tion method (e.g., based on the indicator under development by the NC-
Gesellschaft)
(2) Obtaining statistical data on machine tools performance
(3) Defining suitable classes for the energy efficiency label.
Once step 1 is completed, step 2 could be supported by a mandatory requirement to
test every machine tool according to the test cycle defined in step 1, and to disclose
related data. Hence, the possible introduction of an energy efficiency label could then
be considered in a later stage.
Several stakeholders suggested or at least touched on the possibility of an energy effi-
ciency label for various types of machinery in the past: NC-Gesellschaft e.V., Assem-
bléon13 (for pick-and-place machines), the project partners of MAXIME14. (However,
the idea of an energy efficiency label was dismissed in the course of the project), by a
13 S. Van Gastel: The Environmental Impact of Pick-and-place Machines, SMT, PENN Well, March/April 2009
14 Industry partners: Alfing Sondermaschinen, Bosch Rexroth, VW, BMW, Daimler, Heller, Sie-mens, MAG Powertrain, Audi, Studer, Grob
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 30 of 54
research team15 at TU Braunschweig, Germany, and the Austrian project “Develop-
ment of criteria to communicate the energy efficiency of plastics processing machines”,
which defines an energy efficiency indicator based on the specific energy consumption
per kg of polymer processed.
The findings of Task 3 indicate that there is a (moderate) interest in transparent, com-
parable data regarding energy consumption of machine tools, but there is no clear indi-
cation, that an energy efficiency label could provide the required information. Absolute
power consumption figures, preferably adapted to individual production patterns, seem
to be much more useful information for machinery purchasers, in particular if linked to
cost calculations. In a stakeholder comment CECIMO points out the following addi-
tional shortcomings of an energy efficiency label for machine tools:
it is not supported by an ISO standard for measures
it makes comparisons between machines with different technical characteristics
it does not take into account specific customization and requirements to satisfy
the end users’ needs
it can create confusion and misuse for non-technical stakeholders
taking into account the customization of the products which leads to meeting
the specific requirements given by the end user, labelling is not a suitable tool
and does not meet the need of the customer.
For light-stationary tools, an approach for Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) calculations
for handheld power tools is under development by EPTA (the European Power Tool
Association). Note that handheld power tools is a product segment explicitly excluded
from the scope of this study; however, light-stationary tools (within this study) have a
similar level of complexity, and the association working on the PCF methodology is
common to both sectors.) In addition, a PCF class label might be feasible, particularly
as long as the main energy consuming component (single-phase motors) are not sub-
ject to Energy Efficiency classifications. Motor efficiency labelling would be a possible
alternative, and it would cover most of the environmental factors of relevancy identified
in Tasks 4 and 6 for this type of equipment. If it could be feasibly established, such a
mandatory PCF class label would be the first of its kind globally. Although Task 6 iden-
15 Herrmann, C. et al.: Energy Labels for Production Machines - An Approach to Facilitate En-ergy Efficiency in Production Systems, Proceedings of the 40th CIRP International Seminar on Manufacturing Systems, May 30 - June 1, 2007, Liverpool, UK
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 31 of 54
tified a significant improvement potential, the actual impact of such a label is difficult to
forecast. An interest in such labelling among the users of light-stationary tools cannot
be confirmed based on the findings of Task 3; this is because, basically, large enter-
prises were the focus of this investigation.
Fiscal instruments are of particular interest, as the analysis in Tasks 3-6 indicates,
i.e., that in the machine tools sectors there are some technical measures which gener-
ate a return on investment (ROI). However, this ROI occurs over a timeframe that is too
long to make the investment attractive for many industry clients. Furthermore, the long
use lifetime of machine tools results in a high number of inefficient machine tools (par-
ticularly in the non-NC segment) being in operation also for the midterm future16. A
rapid replacement of these non-state-of-the-art machine tools would result in significant
energy savings. Such a scrapping bonus for automobiles, introduced in the economic
crisis back in 2008 in several countries yielded significant environmental improve-
ments17 18. A scrapping bonus for industrial machinery was discussed in Germany
already in 2010, but was not supported by VDMA at that time19. One of the arguments
against such a bonus is the risk that manufacturers are incentivised to install over-
capacities in times of a generally weak economy.
In order to stimulate the development and implementation of energy-efficient machinery
in manufacturing industry sectors, financial measures could be initiated and installed.
Financial incentives could focus on two different areas or industry sectors, and may
work directly by monetary contribution or indirectly by fiscal bonus:
16 CECIMO comments that “if a machine can be in use for a long time and taking into account the upgrading tendencies, the environmental footprint of such machines should be consid-ered more energy efficient than any other product which after a short use period of time needs to be replaced.” Although Fraunhofer acknowledges the fact, that long machinery lifetime as such is an important environmental feature, in particular as upgrading is com-mon in industry, but it is rather not possible to achieve an efficiency level comparable to new state-of-the-art machinery solely through retrofitting measures. Given the low impact of machinery manufacturing compared to its use phase in most cases (see task 4), the use phase impacts are most relevant and measures to increase use phase efficiency should have preference, but a thorough analysis of this aspect has not been undertaken yet.
17 Höpfner, U.: Abwrackprämie und Umwelt – eine erste Bilanz, ifeu Institut Heidelberg, 2009
18 Hommel AG offered such a business model back in 2009, when they reduced sales prices of new machine tools by 5-10%, if used machine tools are given to Hommel for scrapping, see http://www.industrieanzeiger.de/home/-/article/12503/26150836/Hommel-converts-%e2%80%9cscrap-iron%e2%80%9d-into-cash/art_co_INSTANCE_0000/maximized/industrieanzeigermarktaktuell
19 See interview with H. Hesse (VDMA): http://www.produktion.de/konjunktur/maschinenbau-will-keine-abwrackpraemie/
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 32 of 54
(1) The first mechanism is the financial support of manufacturing industry ac-
tors to invest in new, energy-efficient machinery and equipment. This can
reduce the higher investment costs for energy-efficient equipment, or motivate
the replacement of existing machinery with inherently higher energy consump-
tion. This measure would have a short time effect in reduction of energy use in
industry. Besides incentivising the investment in new, efficient machine tools,
this measure could also address upgrading and retrofitting measures (such as
installing sensor systems for monitoring fluid systems, energy consumption, and
condition monitoring), which increase verifiably the energy efficiency of already
existing machine tools. In addition, or alternatively, financial support could be
provided for training courses to enhance the energy-efficient operation and
maintenance of machine tools. This financial support could also include invest-
ment in equipment to improve non-energy related impacts, such as hydraulic oil
purifiers.
(2) The second financial support system is directed towards the machine tool in-
dustry and to producers of related machinery and equipment, and could en-
hance the research and development for energy-efficient machines. A
stimulation instrument could be envisaged as an industry-directed funding of
pre-competitive research, accompanying the development of energy-efficient
solutions, new technical options, design guidelines or the implementation of
best practice in designing products, or using products. This could accelerate
ecological developments and generate sustainable concepts and solutions. In
the sense of a European initiative, this might be a special action with mixed
programme and funding schemes. It could consist on the one hand of European
funding (e.g. under Horizon 2020, Intelligent Energy Europe etc.) in order to
treat transnational questions, and on the other hand from national funding,
which could address purposeful thematically-focused topics. The research
measures and topics should be well co-ordinated in Europe in order to gain the
active involvement of the main players, to utilise their expertise, and to ensure
complementary activities. Such a tightly led and demarcated initiative could ac-
celerate new or ongoing industrial developments, and could speed up industry-
wide implementation of best practice, and up-to-date knowledge dissemination.
The BAT analysis undertaken in Task 6 is outlined in Table 7-5, including the calcu-
lated additional investment at the point of LCC break-even. (Note that an "LCC break-
even point" in this context does not really mean a costs break-even from the usual
company perspective. This is because the Table 7-5 results are instead calculated over
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 33 of 54
the whole anticipated product lifetime, i.e., it is different from typical commercial return-
on-investment [ROI] considerations.). This gives an indication about the financial incen-
tives which might be hypothetically considered, in order to make it attractive for pur-
chasers to choose a more efficient machine tool instead of a less efficient one20. It is
evident that rather small increases of up to 2% in machinery investment would pay for
the additional machinery costs. On the other hand, such a bonus of 2% is much less
than the difference between the typical resale value of a used machine tool and the
price of a new model. This might hamper the effectiveness of a scrapping bonus in this
range.
Table 7-5: Additional machinery investment at LCC break-even per Base Case (1
) CN
C m
ac
hin
ing
ce
ntre
s
(an
d s
imila
r)
(2) C
NC
La
se
r cu
tting
…
(3) C
NC
Be
nd
ing
ma
ch
ine
too
ls (a
nd
sim
ilar)
(4) N
on
-NC
me
tal w
ork
ing
…
(5) T
ab
le s
aw
(an
d s
imila
r)
(6) H
oriz
on
tal p
an
el s
aw
(an
d
sim
ilar)
(7) T
hro
ug
hfe
ed
ed
ge
ba
nd
ing
ma
ch
ine
(an
d s
imila
r)
(8) C
NC
ma
ch
inin
g c
en
tre
(an
d s
imila
r)
(9) W
eld
ing
eq
uip
me
nt
Base Case machinery purchase price (kEuro)
480 100 60 60 300
Additional investment at LCC break-even (kEuro)
7,8 0,09 1 0,9 4,5
Total Energy at LCC break-even -4,8% -2,2% -5,0% -5,5% -5,0%
The granting of fiscal incentives needs to be based on verifiable criteria, such as cross-
checking against the previously-mentioned good-design-practice checklist, with a man-
datory minimum number of the mentioned aspects to be implemented, in order to qual-
ify.
7.1.4 Product definition
Any measure might be applied on two levels:
Machine tool
(functional or physical) module/ component
20 Given all other machinery parameters and productivity are exactly the same
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 34 of 54
Measures defined on the machine tools level would cover the whole unit as such.
Given the analysis in this study the definition of “machine tools” as provided in task 1
applies. It is possible that measures could be defined for distinct sub-groups under the
overarching “machine tools” definition, e.g. metalworking machine tools, or woodwork-
ing machine tools.
On the module/ component level, products beyond “machine tools" could be covered,
namely “related machinery”, according to the definition in Task 1.
Minimum environmental performance criteria on the component/ module level could
be defined if an environmental performance could be correlated with a distinct technical
performance. Hence, sub-assemblies/ components could be regulated. However,
“functional modules”, or complex physical modules, do not qualify for setting such
minimum performance criteria. Suitable minimum environmental performance criteria
are:
Energy efficiency of arc welding power sources2122 (at the rated output at 100
% duty cycle)
o 70% for single phase power sources and AC welding power source.
o 75% for three phase power sources
Such a requirement bans the less efficient and more bulky transformer type
power supplies (stage 1).
As a mid-term target (within the following 4 years), higher efficiencies would be
widely achievable (and are justified by the findings of Task 6, stage 2), which
would allow the requirements to be tightened (still below the point of LLCC)23:
21 Such efficiency level is only achievable by arc welding power source. Resistance welding power sources are designed by thermal requirement and are not designed for a 100% duty cycle.
22 The initial proposal in the draft final report was 75% for single phase and 80% for three-phase. This proposal was challenged by EWA with the following comment: “AC arc welding power sources will not achieve the three-phase requirement. The ban of the less efficient and more bulky transformer type power supplies at stage 1 will be achieved with a further allowance of 5% (6% of 2010 market). Change Stage 1 to: 70% for single-phase power sources and AC welding power source; 75% for three phase power sources”
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 35 of 54
o 75% for single phase power sources and AC welding power source.
o 80% for three phase power sources
As a long-term target (within the next 6 years, stage 3) requirements corre-
sponding to the point of LLCC are feasible24:
o 80% for single phase power sources and AC welding power source.
o 85% for three phase power sources
Idle state power consumption of welding power sources module at cold state
o 50 W25 (stage 1), 30 W (stage 2)
All pump systems designed to operate at 2 working points or more shall be
speed controlled
Other minimum environmental performance criteria for the component / module level
have not been identified in the course of this study, given the broad system approach
followed here.
For functional and physical modules, sub-chapters of the good-design-practice
checklists are applicable in principle. For all machinery falling under the machinery
directive and not being covered by any machine tools specific implementing measure
23 The initial proposal in the draft final report was 80% for single phase and 85% for three-phase. This proposal was challenged by EWA with the following comment: “AC arc welding power sources will not achieve the three-phase requirement. The ban of the all bulky trans-former type power supplies at stage 2 will be achieved with a further allowance of 5% (29% of 2010 market). Change Stage 2 to: 75% for single-phase power sources and AC welding power source. 80% for three-phase power sources”
24 The initial proposal in the draft final report was 85% for single-phase and 90% for three-phase. This proposal was challenged by EWA with the following comment: “AC arc welding power sources will not achieve the three-phase requirement. The ban of the less efficient inverter type power supplies at stage 3 will be achieved with a further allowance of 5% (80% of 2010 market). This still allows a savings potential larger than 10% as the mean average efficiency is 75% for three-phase power sources. Change Stage to: 80% for sin-gle-phase power sources and AC welding power source. 85% for three-phase power sources”
25 Which takes account of the uncertainty stated in Task 6; 50 W is rather a threshold to ban the least efficient units
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 36 of 54
or voluntary agreement, the checklist approach can be applied for following compo-
nents26:
Drive units
Lubrication system
Cooling system
Electric system
Pneumatic system
Hydraulic system
Die cooling / lubrication
Control unit
As the checklist approach is very generic and does not set quantified targets it is appli-
cable for a rather broad scope.
Table 7-6: Feasibility of measures on machine tools and module level
Nature of measure Machine tools level Module / component level
Minimum environmental
performance criteria
Not feasible due to
broad spectrum of products,
missing statistical data on
current performance
Application specific perform-
ance
Feasible, if
clearly defined as a performance
indicator (e.g. energy efficiency
of power transformation)
Power management re-
quirements
Feasible, if generic, possibly based on
relative power consumption
Feasible, if generic
Good-design-practice
Checklists
Feasible Feasible (could be a sub-list of the over-
arching machine tools related list)
Information / declaration
requirements
Feasible Feasible, but module supplier is required
then to provide the information / declara-
tion
26 List taken from ISO 14955-1 (draft), Annex A and B; component not listed here are “periph-eral devices” as this is a “catch-all” category which hardly can be defined unambiguously
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 37 of 54
7.1.5 Sectoral scope
The discussion above leads to the conclusion, that different approaches are required
for the various sub-segments. A distinction has to be made as follows:
Metal working machine tools
Wood working machine tools
Welding equipment
Other machine tools
Related machinery.
Table 7-7 summarises a holistic concept, where an overarching implementing meas-
ure, similar to the machinery directive, for the scope of machine tools defined in Task 1
integrates segment-specific requirements, and for a broader scope (i.e. scope of the
machinery directive) also some checklist components of the machine tools measure
apply.
Table 7-7: Policy options on a sectoral level
Sector Policy options
All machine tools Overarching Implementing Measure
o Generic checklist approach
o Power management requirements
o Information / declaration requirements
Metal working machine
tools
Exemption from the overarching implementing measure, if
SRI is effective
Wood working machine
tools
Covered by overarching implementing measure
PCF declaration for light-stationary tools, as checklist and
power management basically is not useful / applicable for
these
Welding equipment Covered by overarching implementing measure
Specific power consumption requirements
Other machine tools Covered by overarching implementing measure, unless
any Voluntary Agreement is implemented by any sub-
sector (e.g. semiconductor equipment)
Related machinery For all machinery covered by the machinery directive: Im-
plementing measure tackling selected components with
the generic checklist approach
Applying the checklist would be done in an internal process, just as with other require-
ments for CE-marking and under the machinery directive.
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 38 of 54
It has to be noted, that several standards required to implement this measure are still
under development or do not yet exist.
7.1.6 Related machinery
The analysis did not address in detail “related machinery”, given the inevitable specifics
of the analysed Base Cases. In the light of the identified suitable measures (rather ge-
neric design principles to be considered) it can be stated, that such a design-checklist
approach can be applied to numerous other types of machinery, where similar design
principle could yield significant savings. An extension of these requirements to “related
machinery” requires a thorough definition of the modules addressed in this study. Such
an unambiguous definition and in particular a definition of system boundaries (which
components/ functionalities are considered to be part of a given module) could not be
developed in the course of this study, given the multitude of possible applications. Such
a definition is probably best developed via a standardisation process, which would pro-
gressively refine the definition of the related design checklists.
Applying the checklist approach only for certain modules of “related machinery”, but not
in accordance with the approach for the whole installation, still runs the risk that optimi-
sation would not holistically address the machinery system.
7.1.7 Summary
Table 7-8 summarises the possible requirements for machine tools and related ma-
chinery. The scope is related to the definitions provided in Task 1 (1.1.2.2). In the end
some exemptions might be needed, but as some major basics are still missing (rele-
vant standards etc.) such exemptions cannot be formulated at this point. In theory the
whole stated scope could be covered.
As outlined above, similar improvements could be achieved under Voluntary Agree-
ments (non-existent as yet), which would define ambitious targets.
Besides the requirements listed below, fiscal instruments have been identified as a
possible measure to achieve a timely replacement of inefficient machine tools by new
ones. However, a detailed concept regarding how to set the right incentives for energy
efficient investment goods is still required, but remains to be developed.
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 39 of 54
Table 7-8: Summary of possible requirements
Requirement Scope Evidence for relevance Comments
Energy Management
Provision of an interface to an external or
internal energy monitoring and control
system
CNC machine
tools
Monitoring essential for influencing user be-
haviour (transparency regarding power con-
sumption identified as a gap and as moderate
potential for improvement in Task 6)
Actual likely impact (behaviour change, and
infrastructure adaptation) unknown
Includes also control
commands for central
systems (e.g. extrac-
tion systems in wood
working)
Provision of manual stand-by option All machine tools Reducing power consumption in non-
productive times is of high priority, with a
negligible impact on productivity
For small units only
off-mode
Transition time to a low-power mode (e.g.
10 min)
CNC machine
tools
Reducing power consumption in non-
productive times is of high priority, with a
negligible impact on productivity (example
provided on p. 13)
Minimum power consumption in low-
power compared to idle / ready for opera-
tion (maximum 20%)
CNC machine
tools
Reducing power consumption in non-
productive times is of high priority, negligible
impact on productivity, if exemptions are pos-
sible
Good-design-practice checklists
Tools and methods for All “machine Task 5 and 6 findings demonstrate impor- Only frameworks of
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 40 of 54
(i) analyzing and decipher the cur-
rent state
(ii) Identifying energy intensive func-
tions and modules
(iii) Developing an overall concept,
(iv) Assessing, selecting, and imple-
menting
(v) Monitoring and taking record of
the process
tools” (metal
working, wood
working, welding,
other machine
tools), module
specific checklists
could apply also
to “related ma-
chinery”
tance of implementing several improvement
options, but to leave the decision to the ma-
chinery developer, which option is useful for a
given application
such checklists are
now available, design
guidance on the mod-
ule level are partly
under consideration
(fluids)
Exemptions might
apply as outlined on
p. 18
Information / declaration requirements
Power (and possibly media) consumption
in the various modes
All “machine
tools”
Important to allow for a direct comparison of
machine tools for an informed purchase deci-
sion
Machinery settings
(potentially workpiece)
to be specified, use
scenario will be ge-
neric and might not
reflect properly the
intended use; part of
the documentation
Power consumption in absolute terms for
a given use scenario
Standardised life cycle costs calculation All “machine
tools”
Transparency regarding LCC and compara-
bility of LCC (including energy and media)
identified as a major barrier in task 3
Further specification
of LCC methodology
needed
How power management settings could
be changed
CNC machine
tools
Important to allow an adaptation to specific
production conditions
Any other instructions, which enable the All “machine Important for auxiliary consumption (e.g. No further specifica-
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 41 of 54
operator to operate the machine tool in a
manner, which reduces environmental
impacts
tools” welding gas), and for operation of a machine
tool in a larger production environment (e.g.
adjustment of a central extraction system for
wood working)
tion
Power (and media) consumption values in
real time (for the machine tool as a whole)
CNC machine
tools
Monitoring essential for influencing user be-
haviour (transparency regarding power con-
sumption identified as a gap and as moderate
potential for improvement in Task 6)
Actual likely impact (behaviour change) un-
known
Part of the monitoring
requirements
power (and media) consumption values in
real time (on the component / sub-module
level) and a historic energy consumption
profile, (optional)
CNC machine
tools
Monitoring essential for influencing user be-
haviour (transparency regarding power con-
sumption identified as a gap and as moderate
potential for improvement in task 6)
Actual likely impact (behaviour change) un-
known
Part of the monitoring
requirements
A warning before a low-power mode is
entered automatically (optional)
CNC machine
tools
Important to avoid productivity constraints
Power consumption savings compared to
a standard machine tool
All “machine
tools”
Essential for “bottom-up” mechanism to
quantify effectiveness of a measure
Part of the documen-
tation, rather relevant
for a VA, approach to
define “standard ma-
chine tool” missing yet
Product carbon footprint declaration All “machine Less frequently used units, material choice is Coverage of those
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 42 of 54
tools”, which op-
erate with single-
phase motors
relevant for total life cycle impacts, thus pro-
duction should be included as well (also to
account for trade-offs for material for motors
of higher efficiency)
smaller units, which
do not fall under the
ecodesign regulation
for motors (and for
which no efficiency
classes are defined
yet)
Minimum environmental performance criteria
Energy efficiency of welding power
sources
Welding equip-
ment
Corresponds with LLCC calculations in Task
6
To be implemented in
3 stages
Idle state power consumption of welding
power sources module at cold state
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 43 of 54
7.2 Impact Analysis
7.2.1 Scenarios
Scenarios are calculated based on the assumption that any measure takes effect from
2014, and that machine tools placed on the market during that year will be the first
ones to deviate from “Business-as-usual”.
“Business-as-usual” is calculated with the Base Case results in Task 4 per unit, plotted
with the annual stock figures according to the stock model developed in Task 2, for the
years up to and including 2025.
For all of the policy scenarios, all stock installed before 2014 is calculated with the
Base Case figures of Task 4. All stock implemented in 2014 and thereafter is calcu-
lated with the corresponding results of the related improvement option, as in Task 6.
This approach neglects that the stock still consists of numerous older, much less effi-
cient machine tools. Replacing these machine tools by inherently more efficient ones is
not considered in this simplified model (as it would not be an effect of policy measures,
with the possible exception of a scrapping bonus).
The following policy scenarios are calculated:
LLCC: Implementation of a good-design-practice-checklist, accompanied by
power management requirements and declaration obligations, leading to ma-
chinery improvements corresponding to the point of Least Life Cycle Costs
(LLCC).
LCC-BEP: This can be considered a more “optimistic scenario”, where the
analysis of individual machine tools shows in numerous cases a higher individ-
ual savings potential than what could have been addressed with the generic ar-
chetypal calculations from Task 6. Fiscal incentives furthermore are assumed to
pay off for part of the additional machinery costs for implementing even more
improvement options than in the LLCC scenario. Calculation basis for all ma-
chine tools sold in 2014 and thereafter is the Life-Cycle-Costs-Break-Even-
Point identified in Task 6
10% VA: A Voluntary Agreement is implemented, setting a target that all ma-
chine tools sold in 2014 and thereafter should, on average, consume 10% less
energy than in 2010. Productivity increase is not accounted for in this model
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 44 of 54
calculation (but could and should be addressed in a VA). If productivity changes
were taken into account, only the absolute values would change, not the gen-
eral trends.
PCF label: For light-stationary machine tools, this scenario is based on the as-
sumption that transparency regarding life cycle impacts guides purchase deci-
sions, and is an incentive for tool manufacturer to develop equipment with a
lower carbon footprint, despite the slightly higher Life Cycle Costs. For the cal-
culation of this Product Carbon Footprint label scenario, the implementation of
both improvement options as outlined in Task 6 is assumed27.
7.2.2 Forecast 2025
The forecast data depicted below refers only to Total Energy consumption. Similar
trends can be anticipated for the other environmental impact categories. For each Base
Case the results are shown in two graphs, one with the y-axis starting at zero to visual-
ise the correlation of total changes (left), and a zoomed-in graph (right) to show the
more minor differences among the scenarios.
Given the slight market growth of CNC machines the BAU scenario for Base Case 1
shows a slightly growing energy consumption trend (Figure 7-2). The LLCC and the
LCC-BEP scenarios slightly lower the total energy consumption from 2014 onwards. In
2025, a significant number of CNC machining centres (and similar) installed before
2014 will still be in operation, which means that the gap between BAU and the other
scenarios will continue to increase. The scenario with the highest improvement poten-
tial is “10% VA”, but still with only a moderate effect in 2025. More ambitious targets via
a VA (or much stricter requirements and an implementing measure) could result in
higher savings. A 20% target – if reached - would double the effect in 2025 for this and
the following Base Cases.
27 whereas the replacement of aluminium by the more heavy-weight cast iron represents rather a “wildcard” for material changes and reductions as such
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 45 of 54
Figure 7-2: Base Case 1 - Policy Scenarios - Total Energy 2025 Forecast
Given the significant market growth of laser cutting machines the BAU scenario for
Base Case 2 shows a steadily growing energy consumption trend (Figure 7-3). The
LLCC and the LCC-BEP scenario (in this case, both are the same) slightly lower the
total energy consumption from 2014 onwards. In 2025 still some laser cutting machine
tools (and similar) installed before 2014 will be in operation, which means the gap be-
tween BAU and the other scenarios will still increase. The scenario with the highest
improvement potential is “10% VA”, but still with only a moderate effect in 2025.
Figure 7-3: Base Case 2 - Policy Scenarios - Total Energy 2025 Forecast
For hydraulic presses (and similar, Base Case 3) the same trend as for the other metal
working machine tools is observed (Figure 7-4).
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 46 of 54
Figure 7-4: Base Case 3 - Policy Scenarios - Total Energy 2025 Forecast
Conventional, non-numerical controlled machine tools see a decreasing number of
installed units which results in a slowly decreasing energy consumption trend for the
BAU scenario for Base Case 4 (Figure 7-5). The LLCC and the LCC-BEP scenarios
slightly lower the total energy consumption from 2014 onwards. In 2025 still a signifi-
cant number of non-NC machine tools installed before 2014 will be in operation, which
means the gap between BAU and the other scenarios will still increase. The scenario
with the highest improvement potential is “10% VA”, but still with only a moderate effect
in 2025.
Figure 7-5: Base Case 4 - Policy Scenarios - Total Energy 2025 Forecast
For light-stationary machine tools, a near-stable total energy consumption is to be ex-
pected in the BAU scenario (Base Case 5, Figure 7-6). The LLCC and the LCC-BEP
scenario actually do not apply for these, as neither LLCC nor a LCC-BEP where identi-
fied. Only the PCF label scenario results in savings, although on a very low level, which
is basically due to the fact that the scenario in accordance with Task 2 is based on a
lifetime of 20 years, which presumably overestimates real lifetime for some of the rele-
vant market segments. In 2025 still numerous light-stationary machine tools installed
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 47 of 54
before 2014 will be in operation (actually nearly 50% of the stock), which means the
gap between BAU and the PCF label scenarios will still increase.
Figure 7-6: Base Case 5 - Policy Scenarios - Total Energy 2025 Forecast
For larger industrial wood working machine tools the anticipated long lifetime results in
similarly small short- and mid-term effects of policy options: For panel saws (and simi-
lar, Base Case 6) total energy consumption remains on a stable level in the BAU sce-
nario (Figure 7-7). The LLCC scenario results in a small energy consumption reduction.
The LCC-BEP scenario is the same as the 10% VA scenario, and although meaning a
significant saving per unit, the effect on the stock is very moderate. In 2025 still numer-
ous panel saws installed before 2014 will be in operation, which means the gap be-
tween BAU and 10% VA scenarios will increase beyond 2025.
Figure 7-7: Base Case 6 - Policy Scenarios - Total Energy 2025 Forecast
For throughfeed edge banding machine tools (and similar, Base Case 7, Figure 7-8)
same statements as for the panel saws above apply.
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 48 of 54
Figure 7-8: Base Case 7 - Policy Scenarios - Total Energy 2025 Forecast
For CNC wood working machining centres there is a slight energy consumption growth
trend (Base Case 8, Figure 7-9), given a market growth in this segment, but otherwise
the same statements apply as for the other industrial wood working machine tools,
above.
Figure 7-9: Base Case 8 - Policy Scenarios - Total Energy 2025 Forecast
For welding equipment (Base Case 9, Figure 7-10) a stable stock is anticipated in
terms of units. Consequently the BAU scenario results in a constant level of energy
consumption over time. The LLCC and LCC-BEP scenarios lead to a significant drop in
total energy consumption from 2014 onwards. Note that LLCC and LCC-BEP are
based on improvement options which result in lower power consumption than proposed
in 7.1 with staged implementation. This means that where longer transition times occur
(as proposed in Task 7.1), this savings potential will only be realized later. As LLCC
and LCC-BEP already constitute a savings potential larger than 10%, no 10% VA sce-
nario is calculated here.
It should be noted that the calculations presented do not include further savings of
welding/ shielding gas.
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 49 of 54
Figure 7-10: Base Case 9 - Policy Scenarios - Total Energy 2025 Forecast
An aggregated graph for all Base Cases and related scenarios is depicted in Figure
7-11: The short- to mid-term effect of any policy measure is hampered by the long life-
time, i.e. low exchange rate of investment goods, such as machine tools. Moderate
savings can be achieved with the LLCC and LCC-BEP scenarios, and the difference
between both is minor. A target-setting of 10% improvement could result in significant
total savings. However, even then the absolute total energy consumption level of today
is exceeded, and only the power consumption increase is slowed down.
Figure 7-11: All Base Cases - Policy Scenarios - Total Energy 2025 Forecast
Total savings range from 31 PJ in 2025 (LLCC scenario) to 74 PJ (10% VA / PCF la-
bel). More ambitious targets under a Voluntary Agreement at high market coverage
could yield higher savings.
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 50 of 54
Table 7-9: All Base Cases - Policy Scenarios - Total Energy 2025 Forecast
Total Energy (GER) [PJ] 2013 2014 2020 2025 Savings
all BC - BAU 692 702 727 800 -
all BC - LLCC 692 699 706 769 31
all BC - LCC-BEP 692 699 703 762 38
all BC - 10% VA / PCF label 692 696 682 726 74
When interpreting these results it is important to remember the shortcomings of this
analysis:
Although the Base Cases cover the most important market segments of ma-
chine tools, a gap has to be stated for numerous other types of machine tools,
which cannot be represented properly by the chosen Base Cases (see annex of
Task 4). Consequently, the total impact and the total savings potential will be
higher than stated here; at a best estimate, these figures might be between 10
and 50% higher, but a reliable extrapolation is not feasible.
The calculations do not reflect the increasing complexity (and productivity) of
almost all machine tools types, which will actually lead to an even faster in-
crease of total energy consumption – but presumably also lower energy con-
sumption per product output.
There is a high level of uncertainty regarding individual stock figures, which
means also an uncertainty for the absolute figures, but this does not affect the
overall trends observed.
7.2.3 Plausibility
For metal working machine tools the results are confirmed by a top-down calculation
provided by VDW. Based on the assumption that a savings potential of 20% for new
machine tools vs. old machine tools is feasible28, Hagemann and Würz calculate a an
electricity savings potential of 7,54 TWh for 2020. This calculation is based on the as-
sumption that the more efficient technologies are implemented already from 2010 on-
wards. The baseline consumption scenario is provided in Task 4, 4.5.10.1. VDW calcu-
lations regarding stock effects are documented in Table 7-10.
28 Comparing machine tools in operation currently with those which will be optimized and newly brought on the market, our analysis compares “new, not realizing the optimal savings po-tential” vs. “new, economically ecodesigned”. Hence, our calculation is based on lower sav-ings potentials.
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 51 of 54
Table 7-10: Top-down estimate electricity savings potential of metal working ma-
chine tools in EU-27 (estimate by VDW, translation Fraunhofer)
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Energy consump-tion of machine tools replaced in a given year [TWh, electricity]
3,24 3,42 3,44 3,45 3,47 3,48
Aggregated energy consumption of machine tools re-placed in a given year (= subject to potential efficiency gains) [TWh, elec-tricity]
3,24 10,08 16,94 23,84 30,76 37,72
Energy consump-tion “old stock” [TWh, electricity]
65,08 58,52 51,94 45,33 38,69 32,02
Energy efficiency related savings [TWh, electricity]
0,65 2,02 3,39 4,77 6,15 7,54
Aggregated sav-ings [TWh, electric-ity]
0,65 3,99 10,08 18,93 30,54 44,93
Total energy con-sumption [TWh, electricity]
67,67 66,58 65,49 64,40 63,30 62,19
CO2 savings [t/a] (0,616kgCO2/kWh)
398.921 2.460.084 6.211.521 11.660.250 18.813.289 27.677.654
Aggregated CO2 savings [kt]
399 4.078 14.413 34.797 68.633 119.342
The power consumption (end-energy) forecasts, based on VDW’s estimates are de-
picted in Figure 7-12 and as aggregated savings from 2010 to any given year until
2020 in Figure 7-13.
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 52 of 54
Figure 7-12: Top-down estimate electricity savings potential of metal working
machine tools in EU-27 (estimate by VDW, translation Fraunhofer)
Figure 7-13: Aggregated electricity savings of metal working machine tools in
EU-27 according to VDW calculations
7.2.4 Other impact criteria
Besides environmental criteria, there are some more, which are relevant in an impact
assessment. Reflecting the findings of all tasks, Table 7-11 provides a qualitative as-
sessment of some of the key indicators for the three policy scenarios.
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 53 of 54
Table 7-11: Impact Matrix
Impact Indicator LLCC LCC-BEP 10% VA / PCF
label
Change in comparison to “Business-as-usual”
Economic impact indicators:
- functionality of the product
- affordability of the product
- Implementation costs / administrative costs
- life cycle costs of the product
- competitiveness
0
0
-
+
0
0
-
--
0
0
-
-
-
0
+
Social impact indicators:
- health
- safety
- number of jobs
+
0
0
+
0
+
+
0
0
Environmental impact indicators:
- energy use
- greenhouse gas emissions
- end of life
+
+
0
+
+
0
++
++
0
Other criteria:
- durability of the product
- technical feasibility
- interaction with other Community interventions
- efficiency & effectiveness (value for money)
0
++
++
0
0
+
+
0
0
++
+
0
7.3 ANNEX - Criteria for Voluntary Agreements
Voluntary agreements proposed by industry have to be assessed against the 9 criteria
indicated in Annex VIII of the Directive (source: Working Document - Voluntary agree-
ments under the Ecodesign Directive 2009/125/EC, March 12, 2010):
Criterion 1: openness of participation
The self-regulatory initiative shall be open to any new signatory.
Criterion 2: added value
The self-regulatory initiative must deliver added value, i.e. more than ‘business
as usual’, in terms of environmental performance of products in its scope
Criterion 3: representativeness
The self-regulatory initiative must cover a large majority of the relevant market.
As an order of magnitude it means that in principle more than 70% of the
products placed on the market should be covered by the agreement.
Final Report: Task 7 DG ENTR Lot 5
Page 54 of 54
Criterion 4: quantified and staged objectives
The self-regulatory initiative must set quantified and staged objectives, starting
from a well-defined baseline and measured through clear and reliable indica-
tors, based on extensive scientific and technological background. These indi-
cators must allow monitoring the compliance with the objectives.
Criterion 5: involvement of civil society
The self-regulatory initiative must be publicised, including through the use of
Internet and other electronic means of disseminating information. The same
must apply to interim and final monitoring reports. Interested stakeholders, in-
cluding NGOs and consumer organisations, must be invited to comment on a
self-regulatory initiative and have access to the relevant information (e.g. an-
nual reports, meetings of the monitoring/steering body).
Criterion 6: monitoring and reporting
Signatories are responsible for including a well-designed, credible and reliable
monitoring and reporting system in the self-regulatory initiative, based on veri-
fiable, objective and detailed data. It is notably expected that the signatories
will report annually to the Commission on their progress in meeting the objec-
tives of the self-regulatory initiative. These reports will have the form of aggre-
gated data gathered and submitted to the Commission. Member States wish-
ing to verify the reported values will be granted access to the background data
upon request. To enable independent inspection to occur the signatories will
have to declare which products are covered by the VA and which are not. (...)
Criterion 7: cost-effectiveness of administering a self-regulatory initiative
The self-regulatory initiative, notably as regards monitoring, must not lead to a
disproportionate administrative burden.
Criterion 8: sustainability
The self-regulatory initiative shall be in line with the objectives of the
Ecodesign Directive and in particular: free circulation, enhanced environ-
mental performance of products in a lifecycle perspective.
Criterion 9: incentive compatibility
The self-regulatory initiative shall be consistent with existing framework condi-
tions, especially incentives.